I wanted to make a comment on the cruise missles, but first I want to digress a little (well, more than a little, I guess) :

In regards to this shameful Terri Schiavo deal-

1) The most troubling thing is that her husband does not seem to have had her best interests are heart, ever. And that's the nicest, most polite way I can put it.

2) Just as troubling is that she isn't brain dead (though that's what Dean called Republicans last week!), nor in a vegetative state, from what I see from the great amount I've read. Even if you disagree, I must point out there there is not consensus opinion. Yes, she is most definitely heavily disabled. But shouldn't we err on the side of life, like the President says? I have major problems with the elements of the government in this country effectively ruling that some people don't have the right to live. This introduces the slippery slope of where the division of mercy and murder is.

3) For our Iranian friends, this is actually good in a very perverse way. In a democracy, no one has absolute power. The governor and the President, brothers united, are powerless to stop her death. A lesson in democracy.

OK, I'll move on to the cruise missles. I apologize for the way off-topic remarks. But since I was already discussed previously, I just thought I'd share my two cents (with my tie-in to Iran)...

Iran probably originally intended to use the cruise missles with nuclear warheads. But I don't believe that they will used that way. If Iran ever uses them, I believe the warheads will consist of conventional high-explosives. I believe that Iran, if they ever use them, will use them to try to sink the ships blockading Iran, hopefully later this summer or fall. Should they succeed in sinking a US Navy ship, I can only pray that Bush will remain cool enough not to attack Iran. True, it would be an act of war, but so is the blockade. The blockade is infinitely more destructive than a bombing raid on an Iranian military installation. This reminds me of World War II, near the end, when we closing in on Japan in early 1945, as I recall. American ships were constantly being blown up by the Japanese as we were building up our forces in the region, as I remember. The point is, we had more ships there than the Japanese could blow up with their kamakize pilots. Iran probably has the firepower to sink the entire blockading fleet (torpedoes, cruise missles, USS Cole-style attacks). We just have to stop enough of them, and be able to tough it out long enough. And have enough ships there.

We've proven in Iraq that Americans, contrary to prior Middle-Eastern opinion, are able to take casualties when their leaders and politicians let them. Perhaps we'll prove it again in Iran. American failures in war are very rarely the actual warrior's faults. It is their leaders. We won WWII because for the most part, American leaders were resolved to win the war, no matter what the cost (such as nearly a half-million American deaths). However, in the postwar era, that has often not been the case. But not in Iraq, fortunately. Bush could have pulled out of Iraq a year ago and probably won re-election more comfortably, but he didn't.